MG: I would say it all depends on whether the other side
>> - in this case, the
>> Nazis in Skokie - is allowed to freely speak and
>> march or is heckled and
>> drowned out and thwarted or even beaten into silence
>> and submission, all of
>> which I would consider as interference with the
>> right of free expression.
andie nachgeborenen:
> That is a confusion. You might think it's a bad thing,
> but no one has a right to be heard...
MG: A more recent example
>> was when left-led students at Concordia University
>> in Montreal drowned out a
>> speech by the visiting Benjamin Netanyahu and forced
>> him off the stage in
>> protest against the Israeli occupation. That
>> constituted interference with
>> Netanyahu's right to free speech, IMO,
>
andie nachborenen: Why? What gives him a right to be heard by people,
> other than the government, who don't want to hear him?
---------------------------------------------
Oh boy. Who's on first-What's on second-I Don't Know's on third. You and
Wojtek are indeed confused about my position on this issue.
I've nowhere said disruption of the far right is a "bad thing" or that Nazis have "a right to be heard". Just the opposite. It's to be expected (and encouraged) that the groups singled out for destruction by Nazis and their sympathizers - leftists, trade unionists, gays, people of colour, Jews, etc. - not passively stand by in the face of their provocations, which is why most every demonstration by the far right turns into a melee or threatens to become one. Good. If they're going to be stopped, that's the only way to do it.
In a nutshell, 1) I don't believe in "free speech for fascists" 2) I don't support state intervention to proscribe them, 3) I support any and all grassroots initiatives to deny the far right a public platform, 4) whether you choose to describe the latter an expression of free speech or as a denial of it is immaterial to me, 5) my last word on the subject.